| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Youth Football 400/2.8 or 500/4.0
Jim Pierce, Photographer
 |
Waltham | MA | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 11.10.10 |
->> I have three youth superbowl games this week-end and am looking for input on what you would use, the 400/2.8 or 500/4.0. The games are during the day and it is forcasted to be sunny.
I have shot a ton of youth football but never with a 500 and not sure if it would be too long, if there is such a thing. The 400 is nice but would a 500 be nicer.
I will have field access, no restrictions.
Your thoughts?
Jim |
|
Jim Pierce, Photographer
|
Waltham | MA | USA | Posted: 10:53 PM on 11.10.10 |
->> Wow!!... before I even get a response I get a "funny" vote?
Jim |
|
John Tucker, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cordova | TN | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 11.10.10 |
| ->> 500 is way too much IMO........I'd shoot it with a 70-200....crop to fill the frame........ |
|
Chris Detrick, Photographer, Assistant
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:04 PM on 11.10.10 |
->> "crop to fill the frame"
really? That approach seems lazy.
How about you try to fill the entire frame while shooting?
I would say use what ever lens you are most comfortable with. Or use a 400 for one game, the 500 for the next and shoot the third with one you liked more. |
|
Alan Herzberg, Photographer
|
Elm Grove | WI | USA | Posted: 11:25 PM on 11.10.10 |
| ->> I'm with John - I think the 500 is too much since you will be able to move wherever you want to throughout the games. You should be able to shoot plenty tight with a 400 and for the relatively few times it's not quite long enough for you, you can move up the sidelines. I'd bring along a 70-200 as well, if you can. |
|
Alan Herzberg, Photographer
|
Elm Grove | WI | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 11.10.10 |
| ->> One more thought about shooting tight at youth and high school games: If you are selling photos online and are offering 5x7 or 8x10 prints, you need to shoot/crop loosely enough to allow your online photos to be cropped to those aspect ratios without losing key elements of your image (hands, feet, football, etc). |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 11.10.10 |
->> Take the 400mm f2.8 and bring a 1.4x TC. If 400mm is not tight enough, add the 1.4x and you have 560mm at f4. Using this approach, you do not have to lug a pair of large lenses to do a job that the 400mm and a 1.4x can do. My 1.4x performs well enough to be used in domed stadiums, and my 2x does a great job in bright sunlight.
I shoot high school, NCAA, and NFL from the sidelines and backs of the endzones and I am usually shooting at 300mm, 400mm, and 600mm and it STILL does not seem like enough reach at times and these guys are much bigger than their youth counterparts and thus fill the frame from greater distances.
Another issue is that the youth players, much like our area high schools, are going to spend a lot of time running between the tackles in the center of the field. If you are on the sideline at the line of scrimmage and the ball is spotted on the far side hash mark, you will be almost 40 yards away from a group of people who are not very big and will probably be running left or right in your viewfinder.
The 70-200mm lens on a second body is practically a necessity. A series of malfunctions recently forced me to shoot an NFL game with a single camera body switching between multiple lenses. It is not a mental exercise that I wish to repeat.
Incidentally, I find myself envying your assignment. There is NOTHING better than a football game in daylight and you get to shoot THREE in one day! It should almost be illegal to play football at night or under a dome :) |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Tarentum | PA | USA | Posted: 11:59 PM on 11.10.10 |
->> Personally, I like shooting from the endzones as much as possible with the 400. My 70-200 is there beside me for the 30yd line and in. In my experience, filling 2/3 of the frame is key. When a little kid busts through the line on a long run, the endzone shot makes him look like a pro. Cleaner background than other areas. Youth football is 80% running plays anyhow - at least here.
I agree that a 500 would be too much. I'll shoot f/4 with the 400 f/2.8 but I couldn't imagine using a 500, even on my MkIII. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 12:06 AM on 11.11.10 |
->> Three games, even youth games with a shorter duration, may get tiresome carrying a 400/2.8.
The 500/4 is lighter and if you are doing isolations and tight faces it may be a better solution. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 12:11 AM on 11.11.10 |
| ->> Maybe some clarification is in order. Is this to be used on a FX Nikon or a Canon 1D something with a 1.3x crop? With the Nikon I would use the 500/4, with the Canon the 400/2.8 would be almost the same look. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Tarentum | PA | USA | Posted: 12:22 AM on 11.11.10 |
->> @Steve & Michael - Totally in agreement. I keep my 1.4x in my belt and since the game doesn't move as fast as the higher levels, it helps if they're spending time at the other 20. Easy to put on as well.
I was thinking solely of the 400 on a 1.3x crop factor. That would definitely play into the decision. As far as lugging around the 400, that's the reason I try to stay in one area if I can. If I try to guess where the action is going to happen, I'm always wrong. Endzone area shooting also aids in the "between the tackles" aspect. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 8:35 AM on 11.11.10 |
->> 24-70 and really, really, crop.
Seriously... anyone that's in youth sports sales business knows that there is no such thing as too tight. Nowadays... you're no longer competing with parents that have a 20D and a kit lens. They have 70-200 f/2.8s and better on the sidelines. You need to offer a product that no parents are getting. When I shoot football, I do so with a 600/4 on a D300 or with a TC on a D3s. Could I shoot with a 70-200 and crop? Sure. But you can't crop yourself into a completely melted background with a 70-200. That's what it really comes down to and with youth football, I have never lost a sale because a shot was missing a foot. If it's tight, if there is a face, and it's someone's kid... it can sell. This is pretty much my answer to those that left comments about a 400 or 500 being too tight.
As for Jim's question though... I really think the 400/2.8 gives you more options. A 400 with a TC, gives you 560/4 with little to no loss in focusing speed or IQ. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:52 AM on 11.11.10 |
| ->> 400 with TC is a great combo....heavier than a 500 but gives you many more options....a 70-200 is handy when the play gets near the goal line (I work from the end zones because sidelines are out of control usually) but as your main lens? without a doubt probably the worst advice ever posted here, except for maybe advice urging people to get into the photo business... |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Tarentum | PA | USA | Posted: 8:55 AM on 11.11.10 |
->> To echo that, most of my sales are without feet. I got some great advice from a guy who shoots for a major publication a few years back...
Eyes, Action, Ball - the shots of little Billy's "grimace" while stiff-arming someone sells. The one of him just running with ball... Maybe.
The GWC gear is getting better and especially a day game, the 70-300 kit lens on a T2i is gonna do pretty well as long as the person gets off "sports mode" (although that wont be THAT bad in bright sun). The way to make your shot stand out, in my opinion, is composition.
Shooting as tight as you're comfortable with, getting the faces and action and as little cropping as possible. Really isolate the player and kill what's probably a cluttered background.
I also think waiting for the action to come to you helps. What good is a shot on the other sideline or 45yds away with a 70-200? In my experience, not much. 2/3 of the frame is my rule.
Good luck. Either way you're going to be fine - just a matter if preference it seems. I like the 400 + 1.4 & 70-200 option myself. |
|
Rich Pilling, Photographer
|
New York | NY | U.S.A. | Posted: 9:11 AM on 11.11.10 |
| ->> If you shoot Nikon, the 200/400 f4 zoom is a nice choice. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:27 AM on 11.11.10 |
->> Something to keep in mind, we are heading into the holidays. My BIGGEST holiday sellers are WallHuggers (fatheads) so while shooting tight is nice for print sales FULL length shots that parents can order as a $100+ clings can't be forgotten. For that reason I tend to go with a 300 and a 1.7x as well as the 70-200 and a 24-70 on a 3rd body.
The gap from 200 to 500 is pretty big and covers what IMHO is the sweet spot for youth football..... Take the 400 and toss a 1.4 on it if you end up needing more reach.
In the end it really depends on what products are hot for you and what the parents in your neck of the woods are buying. If prints are the big sellers shoot for print sales, if like me you see a big jump in cling sales for the holidays don't lose sight of that market.
I just did 4 bowls last weekend and am looking a 6 more this weekend. I also put a second shooter in the opposite endzone and capture the action on both sides of the ball.
Rich I got to use a 200-400 last year and it is an AWESOME hunk o glass..... alas Jim is a Canon shooter ;) |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 11.11.10 |
->> +1 on the clean backgrounds.
400/2.8 with extenders as needed if Canon.
200-400/4 if Nikon.
With these digital files, I would rather be a hair loose with the 400, crop vertical or horizontal, still have that sweet background. The 200-400 will pull that off for sure, just gives you the wiggle room.
I agree with the gear the parents have thing. Heck, I shot baseball earlier this year and the only advantage I had over the parent (with a D3 and a 200-400) was where I could get for positioning. It is kind of crazy.
Pretty simple... |
|
Jim Pierce, Photographer
|
Waltham | MA | USA | Posted: 12:35 PM on 11.11.10 |
->> Thanks for the input, I appreciate it!! I have decided to go with the 500/4.0. I did not mention that I have the 300/2.8 and will use this as well as the 70-200. yes three bodies and lenses, probably a 24-70 on my waist too.
I agree with Paul and my strategy has been "to get what the parents can't and do what they don't want to do". In this case I know the 2 teams I am covering have 1000's of images from parents with a 70-300. therefore I want to get what they can't and I feel the 500 will be best to do this with.
I will let you know how it turns out.
Eric, were will you be? I am heading to the south shore to cover Pembroke.
Jim |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:11 PM on 11.11.10 |
| ->> Jim you have mail.... I've stopped posting my schedule in advance for safety's sake. I've also turned off the tracking feature in facebook and am trying to break the habit of announcing my location there too.... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|